The Pacific Ocean covers about one-third of the Earth’s surface. Much of it has been cooling in this era of “global” warming.
New research indicates there has been “cooling of the Pacific sector on decadal timescales during 1940-2020,” including robust cooling reaching -0.4°C per decade from 2005-2019 (even “exceeding -0.9°C per decade during 2005-2010”).
“…observations find a significant cooling of the South Pacific Ocean during 1979-2013”
“…cooling of the Pacific sector on decadal timescales during 1940-2020 in the reanalysis data”
“Sea surface temperature has been decreasing in the southwest Pacific Ocean since 1979, where the cooling has reached -0.9°C per decade during 2005-2010.”
“The warming trend in the Indian sector reaches 0.2°C per decade, and the cooling trend in the Pacific sector reaches -0.4°C per decade during 2005-2019.”
Pacific Ocean cooling is not just confined to the near surface, but also to the deep ocean.
“We further suggest that the Pacific cooling is robust from the surface to the deep, and can even reach the intermediate ocean up to 1500 m rather than being limited to the mixed layer.”
“The cooling trend is also significant in the deep 1000 m, reaching -0.2°C per decade.”
Waiting for the trendologists to jump on this one.
Actually, …ology means learning or the study of. Mancy means divination or magical insight (like necromancy). They should properly be called trendomancers who practice trendomancy.
Yes, soothsaying. Trendologists don’t study climate, they study trends.
Well actually the data on the Pacific says that despite cooling since 2007-2016,
and then warming to the baseline, Overall, since 1980 the temperatures have
changed very little.
I wonder, is the description as ‘robust‘ code for model free?
Either way, would you be at all surprised to know that there is nothing in the UK msm on this study whatsoever? The Guardian, BBC etc have memory-holed this counter-narrative heresy at birth. In fact, the Guardian is busy plugging a new climate doom tool…
Just what damage can the emissions from a new fossil fuel facility cause? A new tool has estimates
From crop failures to coral bleaching, a new tool developed by climate scientists aims to predict in detail the impacts of each megatonne of carbon emissions
The Carbon Impacts Tracer uses peer-reviewed studies to estimate the impact of every megatonne of emissions on people and the environment. Here, you can see how the emissions from a coalmine expansion in Australia’s Hunter Valley could affect food security and human exposure to heat stress globally.
[Never mind the bolleaux…]
There are further predicted impacts from releasing 809m tonnes of emissions not listed in the graphic above, including an estimated 107 deaths in Europe, 41,800 additional people put into extreme poverty, 19.4km square of additional glacier area lost, and 38.8m additional heavy labour hours lost annually. – The Guardian
The ‘Carbon Impacts Tracer‘ has a report generator…
Select a fossil fuel extraction project or company, or enter custom emissions, to trace the pathway from emissions to global warming and its impacts across regions and sectors.
Think of a [big] number.
Carbonomancy…
(I’m going to keep this up until it catches on). 🙂
I’m a certified Carbophile. Deep down most people are.
Eventually, we all get de-certified.
In the long run we just try to keep getting re-certified for as long as possible.
Aye, ’tis baked in the bone.
a new tool developed by climate scientists
I would have thought that climate “science” has produced more tools than any other field of
endeavor grifting since humans began to walk upright.a new tool developed by climate scientists
Funny. We have been told the science was settled time and time again, so why do they need yet another tool?
To shore up their shaky ‘evidence.’
Stone Age tools become dull and break and must be knapped anew.
https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-decode-a-12000-year-old-mystery-hidden-in-ancient-spear-points/#comments
Thanks for the interesting article. Having knapped a few points myself (mostly from beer bottle bottoms–preparing a proper core from stone is tricky) I can appreciate the concerns the ancient hunters must have had.
The quacks should be flogged.
What happened 2019 till 2026 ? The cooling 2010 to 2019 is a shorter period than we have available for a trend. Smells a bit of cherries…
Off Topic: The real Jason Arday…
Academics have launched a rival inquiry into the appointment of Jason Arday, accusing the University of Cambridge of watering down its own investigation.
…
It follows what the group described to the Times as “growing professional disquiet” over Cambridge’s handling of the affair and the emergence of a campus culture where academics “feel unable to voice concerns openly”.
Academics Launch Rival Inquiry into Jason Arday’s Appointment
The Friday Funny – Can I have some of your money edition.
It’s all because Antarctica is melting, pouring cold water on the trends. We aren’t raining on your parade, just trying to shed a little daylight on the subject.
But, but … Oceans are boiling – and back then during the Hiatus (before it got cancelled)
we were told that the Oceans absorbed all the additional warming.
If the ocean is cooling, then that heat has to be going somewhere. The most logical place for that heat to go, would be the atmosphere.
Hmm.
or to space. Thermodynamic heating and cooling is a time function. On the scale of the earth long periods of time are involved. Climate science looks at a small piece of a cyclical process and uses it plus their magic crystal ball to see the future.
Trendomancy…
(Up a minor third) Hmm.
THINK!
The South Pacific Ocean is receiving very cold water running off the Antarctic continent. (NB ice, hard ice, flows off the continent into the surrounding ocean)
very cold water is heavy and falls down the continental shelf into the abyss – all the time.
So, the energy loss is totally explained – it has been shed by the Antarctic ice surface into outer space. The atmosphere is irrelevant, oceans warm or cool atmosphere, atmosphere does not warm or cool oceans.
80 years? Did a decimal point get lost? The lede graph suggests cooling for the last 8 years and warming for the preceding decade. Prior to that (since 1979) there was no obvious trend.
“…cooling of the Pacific sector on decadal timescales during 1940-2020 in the reanalysis data”
Reanalysis ‘data’? I smell a Cli-Sci rat:
‘Reanalysis data provide the most complete picture currently possible of past weather and climate. They are a blend of observations with past short-range weather forecasts rerun with modern weather forecasting models. They are globally complete and consistent in time and are sometimes referred to as ‘maps without gaps’.’
https://www.ecmwf.int/en/about/media-centre/focus/2023/fact-sheet-reanalysis
The South Western Pacific. Isn’t that where the Great Barrier Reef is?
Not if you live in Queensland.
It’s east from there.
Look at a map. Find Tasmania, South Island of New Zealand.
The GBR is along the most northern eastern shore of the continent of Australia.
“Sunny Queensland, beautiful one day and perfect the next”
??? The South Island of New Zealand is not called Tasmania.
Apparently the authors couldn’t get their nonsense published in a decent scientific journal. I wonder why?
So exactly what part of their explanation for asymmetry are you disagreeing with, and why?
He disagrees with all of it because his religion forbids him to think for himself.
The focus on trends in the header piece doesn’t really do the actual paper any favours. The clue is in the title of the paper: “The recent zonal asymmetry of temperature change in the Antarctic circumpolar current”. The authors offer a mechanism for why there is cooling in one area when there is warming in others. They do discuss longer term trends but they aren’t really what the paper is about. Their showing of short-term linear trends for the 2005-2019 period is not, in my opinion, particularly helpful when really what they are getting at is the patterns of ocean heat transport can explain why average temperature anomalies for the different areas can move in different directions.